October 3, 2025

The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll.

Review #2430: The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll.

Cast: 
Paul Massie (Dr. Henry Jekyll/Mr. Edward Hyde), Dawn Addams (Kitty Jekyll), Christopher Lee (Paul Allen), David Kossoff (Dr. Littauer), Francis de Wolff (Inspector), Norma Marla (Maria), Magda Miller (Sphinx Girl), Oliver Reed (nightclub bouncer), and William Kendall (clubman)


Review: 
I guess Terence Fisher really was the everyman for anything related to horror or mystery. From Frankenstein to Dracula to mummies to werewolves to black magic to Sherlock Holmes to, well, I guess it makes sense to say Hammer went with Fisher for their attempt at Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde......okay actually it was their second attempt. For whatever reason, in 1959, Hammer did a comic adaptation of the book and called it The Ugly Duckling with Bernard Breeslaw playing the key Jekyll (tough luck clouded the movie anyway, it apparently is not available on home video and may very well be lost). Now, here we are with a serious attempt at it for 1960. It had been a while since there was a serious attempt at it anyway, as the previous decade had a litany of variations on the story (whether it be a Son in 1951, a comedy parody in 1953, a Daughter in 1957, or, well, comedy stuff: previously, I watched two adaptations of the material with 1920 and 1931). The movie was written by Wolf Mankowitz (a writer of novels and films probably best known for A Kid for Two Farhings [1953]), and the distribution was two-fold: Columbia Pictures released it in the United Kingdom while American International Pictures distributed it in the States in 1961 as "House of Fright" that cut out eight minutes (which defeats the whole damn point of watching a horror movie, particularly one that runs at only 88 minutes for the modern age anyway); neither release was particularly successful (also good god that US title is horrible), but well, people kept making Hyde films: Hammer themselves did a variation with Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde in 1971 while the current rendition of Hammer distributed Doctor Jekyll in 2023. And, well, Christopher Lee ended up playing a rendition of the Jekyll tale with I, Monster (1971) a few years later.

It didn't get much interest six decades ago, but it would fit pretty well for those who are willing to watch a lurid slow-burn. Sure, it isn't much of an adaptation of the material (hell, most of them aren't going to use the framing device of the novella that one doesn't know if Jekyll is actually Hyde for a time), most notably that Jekyll is depicted with a beard while Hyde is the "handsome" one with no beard (I guess the hair just retracts like clicking a pen over and over). So you get a movie that plays the Victorian times against each other to justify someone deciding to explore just what the "id" and the man is. Sure, he may not go around getting into fights, but Hyde sets up a person to get killed by a snake and basically leads to the death of two women (one by lovely fall and the other by straight up murder) while Jekyll just ages. It may interest you to know that Massie was more of a teacher than an actor. The Canadian (from St. Catharines, Ontario) acted in the late 1950s but changed his attention to being a theater professor for the University of South Florida that dealt with productions for over two decades. His performance here might be a bit too artificial to really accomplish the mental duel of someone who really should've not tried to touch matters of the soul, but he does at least maneuver some entertainment in making the differences between Hyde and Jekyll clear (Hyde isn't exactly unstoppable, for one). Fundamentally though, Lee does shine well in a role that he apparently thought was one of his favorites. Playing a cad that requires him to just be suave without needing to lurch in makeup does sound entertaining, and he does make an interesting partner to Addams in dastardly things (gasp: an affair). You get the spiel of authority stuff from Kossoff and de Wolff while Marla slithers through a bit of material standardly enough. In general, the movie having little gruesome content likely didn't give it many favors, but there are those who might find an interesting movie to be had here, one that has plenty of color and artificial nature to maybe get over the finish line for casual interest. I think it is fine enough to serve well for a Hammer marathon, so inquire for yourself.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

No comments:

Post a Comment